Maxwelhse 1,285 Posted April 6, 2014 Report Share Posted April 6, 2014 (edited) I don't care what the label is if it comes with DS mags! Besides... we don't know that Mike's marketing person isn't some hot chick! Edited April 6, 2014 by Maxwelhse Quote Link to post Share on other sites
evlblkwpnz 3,418 Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 Anyone able to use the patent drawing that showed up a few years to model that beast in a Badass (evlblksbs, cough,)Saiga? Not me. I'm doing good to piddle around with MS Paint, lol. Photoshop is way beyond my cyber skillset. All I know is that little runt looks ruthless with a drum in it. Not much to hold onto though. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MikeD 541 Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) The patent office is very picky about issuing patents. It is more their job to deny a patent than issue one... An example... I know a guy that came up with a device. Searching high and low in the patent records as well as the internet pulled nothing similar. Well... The patent office found two patents it infringed on... Many many patents are contested by the patent office and take extra work by the inventor to prove it is original. The patent office never contested my patent... There have been many many magazine advancements in the last hundred years and the Bren mag is definitely far from the same principal as mine. Also the length difference between some Bren ammos is nothing in comparison to shotgun ammo. With that said I will bet the Bren runs into problems with their magazine design when using some of those ammo types... If I get some extra time maybe I can do some test with our post sample Bren. The whole reason rimmed cartridges have become few and far between is because the norm went to magazine fed firearms... GunFun is absolutely correct. Coping a patented item for personal use is still infringement. Nothing needs to be sold or offered for sale. If a patented item is copied for personal use the patent hold was still cheated out of a sale. I know this thread was misunderstood and that a drawing for visual purposes was all that was asked for. We will post some pics soon. Edited April 17, 2014 by Mike Davidson 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gunfun 3,931 Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 From what I've been learning the patent office is far from consistent. The rough idea I've been given. If they understand the patent, they are probably going to find prior art deny it. If they don't understand the patent they are probably going to approve and leave it for competitors to point out prior art and invalidate it. i.e. all the cell phone interface patents we've all been hearing about. It's very rare to find a truly original idea. Personally, I think there should be a "fair use" type exemption for low quantity, personal, non-commercial use. but there isn't so we just have to live with it. I'd be in favor of a constitutional amendment authorizing a change to first to file with approval presumed. Extend patent for some types of things to 20 year term. Low burden to challenge validity for first 3 years, high burden thereafter. I think competitors will be far more expert than any examiner could ever be, and will be better at finding prior art if it is really there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
james lambert 3,059 Posted April 17, 2014 Report Share Posted April 17, 2014 Patents dont seem to matter for some on this forum Jim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.